-SB 182. by Partrick, Dan Introduction: Bill HB36 was introduced in the house by Author, Corte and Joint Author Fletcher, and Brown, Betty.The bill deals with the relating to informed consent to an abortion. HB36 have been introduced to the committee in November 10, 2008. The bill HB36 was filed on Nov. 10, 2008, read for the first time Feb. 12, 2009, referred to state affairs on Feb. 12, 2009, scheduled for public hearing on April 21, 2009 considered in public hearing on 4/21/2009 and then left pending in the committee 4/21/2009. The bill mandates that the physician performing the abortion, ultra sound images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, make available an audio recording of the heart beat, auscultation for the pregnant woman to hear. Then also a simultaneous verbal explanation of the heart auscultation and then the pregnant woman signs a written statement before the abortion is performed.
Bill HB36 also has a companion bill, SB 182 was introduces in the house by Patrick, Dan and co-author: Carona/Denell/ Hegar/Lucio/Nelson/Nichols. The bill has gone a lot further in the House than the previous bill. This bill was filed November 10, 2008, stage 2 out of Senate Committee 3/26/2009, Stage 3 voted on by Senate and stage 4 out of House committee May 19, 2009. The bill is not placed on major state calendar on 05/26/2009 awaiting the next stage which is voted on by the House. Bill Timeline for HB36 Stage 1-Bill filed by Corte on 11/10/2008 Stage 2-Not reached Stage 3-Not reached Stage 4-Not reached Stage 5-Not reached Stage 6-Not reached Stage 7-Not reached Bill Timeline for SB 182 Stage 1-Bill filed by Patrick, Dan on 11/10/2008.
Stage 2-Bill reported out of Senate committee on State Affairs with vote of 7 Ayes, 2 Nays, 0 Present Not Voting, 0 absent Stage 3-Bill passed the Senate Stage 4-Bill reported out of House committee on State Affairs with vote of 8 Ayes, 4 Nays, 1 Present Not Voting, 2 absent Stage 5-Not reached Stage 6-Not reached Stage 7-Not reached BILL ANALYSIS SB 182 & HB 36 The bill is revising the informed consent for the abortion includes mandatory ultrasound and State Affairs committee substitute recommended. The Vote consists of eight ayes from: Solomons, Cook, Cradddick, Geren, Harless, Hilderbren, Jones, Swinford and four nays from: Menendez Farabee, Lucio, Maldonoado and also one present, an did not vote S. Turner.
Supporters: Bill SB 182 would assist to make certain that the woman making a choice concerning her abortion having the access to all of the medical information to make the right judgment be the abortion takes place. The ultrasound gives the woman a superior view of what she is about to do. This bill would give the women looking from the outside inn a chance to look from the inside out. This will give the woman the equal type of medically specific information they would be given them any type of procedure, as well as risks benefits and ability to make a healthier decision.Bill SB 182 focus on protecting the women’s health by making certain that a woman chooses abortion; she does it in a totally knowledgeable approach. If the woman does not choose to observation the picture or listen to the ultrasound or details, she is not required to do so. Some clinics conduct only counseling sessions before abortions and hurry the women through the process and not including that they fully understand the information. “Some women say they would not have had an abortion if they had known more about the procedure and the development of the unborn child.” Informing a woman totally about her unborn child growth through the ultrasound images might decrease the sum of abortions. To perform the ultrasound is the standard of care previous to an abortion process. This bill would put into order that the normal practice is being held. This would not cost extra to the woman seeking the abortion because the clinics already include an ultrasound in the price of the abortion.
(On House companion bill, HB 36): For Bill and Witnesses — Angie Andino, J. Brent Bullock, Texas Pastor Council, Brandi Dudley, Linda Flower, Texas Physicians Resource Council, Ardith Frank, MerryLynn Gerstenschlager, Texas Eagle Forum; Elizabeth Graham, Texas Right to Life; Tricia Heflin; Christine Kasper, Houston Coalition for Life; John Link; Mikeal Love; Dustin Matocha, Young Conservatives of Texas; Christine Melchor, Houston Coalition for Life; Juli Morrison; Myra Myers, Texas Justice Foundation Operation Outcry; Anne Newman, Trinity Legal Center; Patrick Nunnelly; Dennis Opferman; Julia Russell; Jonathan Saenz, Free Market Foundation; Stacy Sullivan; Angelica Talavera; William Turpin; Judy Vatterott, Life Advocates Houston; Molly White, Women for Life International, Incorporated; Terry Williams, Central Texas Life Care; Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life; (Registered, but did not testify: Jennifer Allmon, The Texas Catholic Conference, Roman Catholic Bishops; Adam Black, Texas Right to Life; Deirdre Cooper, Texas Alliance for Life; Julie Drenner, Texans for Family Values; Ann Hettinger, Concerned Women for America; Marian Matthews, Concerned Women for America; Judy Najarian, Foundation for Life; Beverly Nuckols, Texas Alliance for Life; Ryan Paylor, Texas Conservative Coalition; Susan Paynter, Christian Life Commission, Baptist General Convention of Texas; Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life, Incorporated; Beverly Roberts, Concerned Women for America; and 69 individuals)
OPPONENTS: Bill SB 182 is discussing the invalid and belittling theory that the women are making uneducated choice concerning the abortion. Knowledgeable permission is already requested before every one surgical procedure and nearly the majority of the women previously has an ultrasound procedure previous to the abortion and viewed the ultrasound images. Requesting that the woman have an ultrasound and choose whether or not to observe or listen to it would be improperly emotionalizing for the woman’s judgment. When the women have made her choice, the bill will affect the woman choice but will not be the helping factor to the woman. The bill SB 182 would be particularly disturbing for victims of sexual-assault matter. Even though the woman can choose not to see the images or listen to the ultrasound it still would be performed, so what if the cost do not increase it was medically required, addition an avoidable fee to the procedure.
Against Bill: Terri Burke, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Russell Crawford; Harold Huff; Mike Hull, Texas Association of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; (Registered, but did not testify: Charlie Earle; Randall Ellis, Legacy Community Health Services; Noelia Flores, La Fe Policy Research & Education Center; Andrea Guttin; Simone Nichols; Lesley Ramsey, Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates; Blake Rocap, National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws Pro-Choice Texas; Rebecca Snearly; Scott Spear, Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region; Shelly Strauss; Danielle Tierney; Janice Williams, State League of Women Voters)
-SB 182. by Partrick, Dan
Introduction:
Bill HB36 was introduced in the house by Author, Corte and Joint Author Fletcher, and Brown, Betty. The bill deals with the relating to informed consent to an abortion. HB36 have been introduced to the committee in November 10, 2008. The bill HB36 was filed on Nov. 10, 2008, read for the first time Feb. 12, 2009, referred to state affairs on Feb. 12, 2009, scheduled for public hearing on April 21, 2009 considered in public hearing on 4/21/2009 and then left pending in the committee 4/21/2009. The bill mandates that the physician performing the abortion, ultra sound images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, make available an audio recording of the heart beat, auscultation for the pregnant woman to hear. Then also a simultaneous verbal explanation of the heart auscultation and then the pregnant woman signs a written statement before the abortion is performed.
Bill HB36 also has a companion bill, SB 182 was introduces in the house by Patrick, Dan and co-author: Carona/Denell/ Hegar/Lucio/Nelson/Nichols. The bill has gone a lot further in the House than the previous bill. This bill was filed November 10, 2008, stage 2 out of Senate Committee 3/26/2009, Stage 3 voted on by Senate and stage 4 out of House committee May 19, 2009. The bill is not placed on major state calendar on 05/26/2009 awaiting the next stage which is voted on by the House.
Bill Timeline for HB36
Stage 1-Bill filed by Corte on 11/10/2008
Stage 2-Not reached
Stage 3-Not reached
Stage 4-Not reached
Stage 5-Not reached
Stage 6-Not reached
Stage 7-Not reached
Bill Timeline for SB 182
Stage 1-Bill filed by Patrick, Dan on 11/10/2008.
Stage 2-Bill reported out of Senate committee on State Affairs with vote of 7 Ayes, 2 Nays, 0 Present Not Voting, 0 absent
Stage 3-Bill passed the Senate
Stage 4-Bill reported out of House committee on State Affairs with vote of 8 Ayes, 4 Nays, 1 Present Not Voting, 2 absent
Stage 5-Not reached
Stage 6-Not reached
Stage 7-Not reached
BILL ANALYSIS
SB 182 & HB 36 The bill is revising the informed consent for the abortion includes mandatory ultrasound and State Affairs committee substitute recommended. The Vote consists of eight ayes from: Solomons, Cook, Cradddick, Geren, Harless, Hilderbren, Jones, Swinford and four nays from: Menendez Farabee, Lucio, Maldonoado and also one present, an did not vote S. Turner.
Supporters:
Bill SB 182 would assist to make certain that the woman making a choice concerning her abortion having the access to all of the medical information to make the right judgment be the abortion takes place. The ultrasound gives the woman a superior view of what she is about to do. This bill would give the women looking from the outside inn a chance to look from the inside out. This will give the woman the equal type of medically specific information they would be given them any type of procedure, as well as risks benefits and ability to make a healthier decision. Bill SB 182 focus on protecting the women’s health by making certain that a woman chooses abortion; she does it in a totally knowledgeable approach. If the woman does not choose to observation the picture or listen to the ultrasound or details, she is not required to do so. Some clinics conduct only counseling sessions before abortions and hurry the women through the process and not including that they fully understand the information. “Some women say they would not have had an abortion if they had known more about the procedure and the development of the unborn child.” Informing a woman totally about her unborn child growth through the ultrasound images might decrease the sum of abortions. To perform the ultrasound is the standard of care previous to an abortion process. This bill would put into order that the normal practice is being held. This would not cost extra to the woman seeking the abortion because the clinics already include an ultrasound in the price of the abortion.
(On House companion bill, HB 36): For Bill and Witnesses — Angie Andino, J. Brent Bullock, Texas Pastor Council, Brandi Dudley, Linda Flower, Texas Physicians Resource Council, Ardith Frank, MerryLynn Gerstenschlager, Texas Eagle Forum; Elizabeth Graham, Texas Right to Life; Tricia Heflin; Christine Kasper, Houston Coalition for Life; John Link; Mikeal Love; Dustin Matocha, Young Conservatives of Texas; Christine Melchor, Houston Coalition for Life; Juli Morrison; Myra Myers, Texas Justice Foundation Operation Outcry; Anne Newman, Trinity Legal Center; Patrick Nunnelly; Dennis Opferman; Julia Russell; Jonathan Saenz, Free Market Foundation; Stacy Sullivan; Angelica Talavera; William Turpin; Judy Vatterott, Life Advocates Houston; Molly White, Women for Life International, Incorporated; Terry Williams, Central Texas Life Care; Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life; (Registered, but did not testify: Jennifer Allmon, The Texas Catholic Conference, Roman Catholic Bishops; Adam Black, Texas Right to Life; Deirdre Cooper, Texas Alliance for Life; Julie Drenner, Texans for Family Values; Ann Hettinger, Concerned Women for America; Marian Matthews, Concerned Women for America; Judy Najarian, Foundation for Life; Beverly Nuckols, Texas Alliance for Life; Ryan Paylor, Texas Conservative Coalition; Susan Paynter, Christian Life Commission, Baptist General Convention of Texas; Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life, Incorporated; Beverly Roberts, Concerned Women for America; and 69 individuals)
OPPONENTS:
Bill SB 182 is discussing the invalid and belittling theory that the women are making uneducated choice concerning the abortion. Knowledgeable permission is already requested before every one surgical procedure and nearly the majority of the women previously has an ultrasound procedure previous to the abortion and viewed the ultrasound images. Requesting that the woman have an ultrasound and choose whether or not to observe or listen to it would be improperly emotionalizing for the woman’s judgment. When the women have made her choice, the bill will affect the woman choice but will not be the helping factor to the woman. The bill SB 182 would be particularly disturbing for victims of sexual-assault matter. Even though the woman can choose not to see the images or listen to the ultrasound it still would be performed, so what if the cost do not increase it was medically required, addition an avoidable fee to the procedure.
Against Bill: Terri Burke, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Russell Crawford; Harold Huff; Mike Hull, Texas Association of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; (Registered, but did not testify: Charlie Earle; Randall Ellis, Legacy Community Health Services; Noelia Flores, La Fe Policy Research & Education Center; Andrea Guttin; Simone Nichols; Lesley Ramsey, Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates; Blake Rocap, National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws Pro-Choice Texas; Rebecca Snearly; Scott Spear, Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region; Shelly Strauss; Danielle Tierney; Janice Williams, State League of Women Voters)